Cherry Audio's CA2600 is available NOW!

[future-bit]

The only thing I don’t understand is where Voltage Modular owners win? They will buy twice as modules and as a VSTi ??

The dudes bemoaning that the company who makes their modular synth is also, gasp!, creating and selling bigger VST versions of some of their modules need to chill-down their entitlement.

Not all developers think so. And it pleases.

When I bought the RE version of Synapse Audio Legend, I got the VST version of Synapse Audio Legend quickly and for free.

When I bought INPHONIK RX950 Classic AD / DA Converter VSTi, I got the RE version for free. RE is also in the minority, but no one did not reason as you.

[Koshdukai]

Don't want em? Don't buy em.

Yeah...

The virtual-modular crowd is no doubt vastly smaller than the VST plugin market crowd.

VM was what made me look at CA. Had it started with these VSTs I would never look at it twice and even think about these products.

What they are doing just makes good business sense, and both worlds can be satisifed.

hmmm... maybe.

[starflakeprj]

The only thing I don’t understand is where Voltage Modular owners win? They will buy twice as modules and as a VSTi ??

The dudes bemoaning that the company who makes their modular synth is also, gasp!, creating and selling bigger VST versions of some of their modules need to chill-down their entitlement.

Not all developers think so. And it pleases.

When I bought the RE version of Synapse Audio Legend, I got the VST version of Synapse Audio Legend quickly and for free.

When I bought INPHONIK RX950 Classic AD / DA Converter VSTi, I got the RE version for free. RE is also in the minority, but no one did not reason as you.

So just because one or two developers decides to offer the VST for free if the customer has purchased the RE version, or vice versa, ALL other developers should do the same?

The DCO-60 is not exactly the same as DCO-160, and the SynthVoice is not exactly the same as CA2600, while The Legend is and Obsession are exactly the same instrument no matter they're being VST or RE.

Maybe not completely a fair comparison, but the total price of buying both the Voltage Modular module + the VST instrument is still cheaper than The Legend RE+VST.

[mholloway]

When I bought the RE version of Synapse Audio Legend, I got the VST version of Synapse Audio Legend quickly and for free.

When I bought INPHONIK RX950 Classic AD / DA Converter VSTi, I got the RE version for free. RE is also in the minority, but no one did not reason as you.

This comparison is totally bogus;
The RE and VST versions of the Synapse plugins are identical. They are quite literally the same synths, so it makes sense to provide one if you've bought the other.
The voltage modules and the plugins are not the same. There are big differences.

And, again, the things are 25 bucks a pop. But apparently that's not good enough, gotta play the "ah we voltage users are getting screwed by this!!!!" card. Whatever. Fight the good fight, I guess.

[future-bit]

So just because one or two developers decides to offer the VST for free if the customer has purchased the RE version, or vice versa, ALL other developers should do the same?

And, again, the things are 25 bucks a pop. But apparently that's not good enough, gotta play the "ah we voltage users are getting screwed by this!!!!" card. Whatever. Fight the good fight, I guess.

This shows the attitude towards the buyer: some developers give away for free or at a discount, Cherry Audio even sells MS-20 poly-modules for owners of mono-modules separately.

This is neither good nor bad. This is a business. But these are two warning signs for me to be careful about buying. I won't mindlessly pay for every new Cherry Audio product just because it's only $ 25. I am not a beggar, but I will not buy one product in different casings.

[gentleclockdivider]

Here are two files , both files contain a cherry audio and reaktor ensemble audio file , with stock primary modules using a sine osc wave for fake resonance
Thy sound verrry close , to close to consider the CA2600 be analogue modelled at all , given the fact I used 20 year old primary modules and fake resonance

https://app.box.com/s/o5q0etf24dl9acrgvb1fhv9feldno2mv
https://app.box.com/s/ksu4a78fg6oi9axd6tx4frx5j7twvqs5

[satchnut]

Can anyone confirm if this is better than TimewARP as CA is essentially claiming or as cheap as gentleclockdivider is claiming?

[Koshdukai]

The only claim to fame for me is how affordable and easy/simple it is to use.

I know DCO-106/DCO-60 sound isn't as close to the original as "(a)claimed" but... I usually consider every instrument as unique no matter if inspired or trying to be as close to existing ones as possible (that's basically my excuse to own multiple versions of the same hardware emulation).

My 2 cents on this

Having said that and out of curiosity, I really need to take some time and compare CA2600 with TimewARP and the Arturia ones, since I own them all.

[chk071]

Can anyone confirm if this is better than TimewARP as CA is essentially claiming or as cheap as gentleclockdivider is claiming?

I haven't tried CA2600, but, TimewARP surprised me, as it was developed in 2004, and still sounds pretty good. Sure, there are synths with better analog modelled filters these days, but, it's really good, especially considering that it doesn't use ZDF tech for the filters.

I had some issues figuring out stuff though, and the manual doesn't really help much... the GUI is pretty antique, small, and the layout is difficult, like on the original. It's manageable after a while though. Still have to learn a lot though.

Cool synth, but, not sure if I make much use of it in the future. For the price, no-brainer though.

[LoveEnigma18]

never mind

[gentleclockdivider]

Cherry audio doesn't use zdf at all , the (weird small ) resonancce peak is an added sine wave , they used a verry cheap trick and marketed it as genuine modelling
I am just waiting for them to admit it
https://forums.cherryaudio.com/viewtopi ... 5067#p5067
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=554910&p=7931924&fb ... A#p7931924

[gentleclockdivider]

The only claim to fame for me is how affordable and easy/simple it is to use.

I know DCO-106/DCO-60 sound isn't as close to the original as "(a)claimed" but... I usually consider every instrument as unique no matter if inspired or trying to be as close to existing ones as possible (that's basically my excuse to own multiple versions of the same hardware emulation).

My 2 cents on this

Having said that and out of curiosity, I really need to take some time and compare CA2600 with TimewARP and the Arturia ones, since I own them all.

Yes do that , and post signal analyzer screenshots with the following settings
-resonance 80 ( just make sure there is an obvious spike, resoance peak )
-filter freq 4Khz (non kbd tracked ) ,4 pole filter
-osc 3 set to 16' , disable kbd

[gentleclockdivider]

Already got them in this thread , page 12
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=554910&p=7932058#p7932058

[Koshdukai]

Cool, I saw that too.

[cherryDan]

Hello,

I am pretty sure the r(extra narrow )esonant peak is faked

Thanks for your interest in our products. I can assure you that we are as interested in getting these details right as you are in analyzing what we've built, and I commend you for your dedication to this issue.

There was indeed a small math issue in the CA2600's filter code that caused the weird resonance peak that you observed. Sonically it was correct but the filter was not behaving as it should. We've just published CA2600 Build 86, which will automatically update the next time you run CA2600 (unless you've turned off automatic updates). Build 86 features improved filter code that correctly self-oscillates.

Please let us know how Build 86 works for you!

Thanks,
- Dan @ Cherry Audio